Christian Existentialism - Part 2

Epistemology

Note: This part two of the series. Click here for part 1, and click here for part 2.1.

Epistemological concerns are by far the most difficult, but most important, issues to address in theological debate. When reviewing the correspondence that took place last week at the Gadfly, differences in epistemology between the Reformed and exist~dissolve/deviant monk were certainly the cause of debate as well as difficult communication. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the philosophical/theological term epistemology, let me briefly explain it. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with defining the concept of knowledge. Often in our lives we ask the question, "How do you know?" That is basically what epistemology concerns, but it is more difficult than it seems. For those of you who have never studied epistemology before (and I am by no means an expert), to answer the question How do I know? is not as easy as it may seem. When one studies how one knows, he becomes very aware of the fact that mankind takes the concept of knowledge--the fact that he knows anything--for granted.

The foundation of a worldview in epistemological terms is the concept of authority. Authority concerns sources of truth or knowledge. All worldviews appeal to some sort of authority, and each worldview has a fundamental authority that is taken without question. It could be the scientific method, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or personal experience. From whence do we obtain truth? In the Reformed perspective, our authority is the Canon of the Old (Torah, Prophets, Writings) and New (Gospels, Epistles, Revelation) Testaments. Exist~dissolve's epistemology was and is very difficult to ascertain, and I had to directly correspond with him to get some clarification. The closest "authority" I received from them was "both ecumenical councils and Scripture." However, exist~dissolve qualifies his understanding of authority in this manner:

In my perspective of authority, something does not have to attain an absolute value in order to be considered authoritative. After all, in the kind of “authority” we are speaking about in relation to the Scriptures and councils, this value is applied, not inherent. As an example, Jerome Modell (a world-famous drowning researcher) is not an “authority” on drowning simply because he has studied it, or even because he has reached a certain level of proficiency that automatically registers authority. Rather, he is an expert and authority because others have imbued him (and his abilities) with such. The same is true of government. Government in not an authority simply because it “is,” or even because it exercises over-power. Ultimately, government is “authority” because it has been granted such.

In the same way, the Scriptures and the affirmations of the councils are not authoritative simply because they “are,” as if they have an absolute, eternal value-set that has been lowered on the church. Rather, they are an authority because the church has placed itself under their rule, imbuing them with an authority to outline and delineate the parameters of proper belief. In this way, the “authority” of each is an act of faith that chooses to place itself under the teaching of the apostles, deliberately choosing to believe that they have delivered unto the church, through the guidance of the Spirit, a trustworthy message regarding what they have learned from Christ.

With that being said, my considerations about language and Scripture outlined previously would also apply to the councils and creeds; although they are authoritative to belief, their language does not encapsulate truth absolutely and transcendently. Rather, the authority which they exercise is equally an act of faith of the Church.

In other words, Exist considers the Scripture to be authoritative in a relative sense, and only because the church has thrusted that authority upon them. He and deviant monk do not believe that the Scriptures themselves claim to be authoritative absolutely. The Bible is not intrinsically authoritative due to its "inspiration" of the Holy Spirit, it is authoritative because traditionally, the church gave it its authority. Therefore, his understanding of Scripture as authoritative is limited to persuasion at best, but the canon of Scripture is not absolute and final. Moreover, exist~dissolve and deviant monk have other epistemological claims as well. First, they consider propositional truth problematic, because "it creates the allusion of correspondence between the divine and human (language)." Why? Because human language is incapable of the expression of transcendental divine truth. It is as if God's truth and man's truth are mutually exclusive, which is a theme in the writings of Emil Brunner, Soren Kierkegaard, and other existentialists. In fact, exist~dissolve limits human language even further here, here, and here.

What is interesting to me is this: It seems to me that for exist~dissolve, God is only transcendent (or God's existence is above and beyond the material world) and minimally immanent (existing in, and extending into, all parts of the created realm). It doesn't appear that exist believes that God could be both transcendent and immanent. If he does, that immanence is apparently limited to Person of Christ--the only true "self-revelation" of God. The Bible may be "revelation". but for them, it is not "self-revelation." My best estimate of their epistemology is this: Divine truth is communicated to a man only in an experiential, relational, intimate encounter with the Person of Christ--and it is not obtained through propositional, logical language.

Critique

Concerning Human Language -- The intent of epistemology is to demonstrate that knowledge is possible, and in the realm of theology, its goal is to demonstrate that God is knowable. Exist has admitted the difficulty of explaining how that is possible in the context of his presuppositions, and that difficulty is due to the limitations of human language. The late Gordon H Clark, a Reformed theologian and philosopher, has addressed the above issues quite directly. For example:

Theories of the origin, nature, and purpose of language have been recently developed that would prevent God from speaking truth to man on the ground that language cannot convey literal truth. Some writers say that all language is symbolic or metaphorical...Other writers make more restricted claims and say only that all religious language is metaphorical; from which it follows that if God uses language, he cannot tell the literal truth, but must speak in symbolism or mythology.

Those who defend the Bible as a true revelation must insist that it conveys literal truth. This does not mean that God cannot sometimes use symbolism and metaphor...God might have even used mythology or fable. But unless there are literal statements along with these figures of speech--or at the very least, unless figures of speech can be translated into literal truth--a book conveys no definite meaning.

Suppose the cross is selected as a Christian symbol, and suppose some flowery speaker should say, Let us live in the shadow of the cross. What can he mean? What does the cross symbolize? Does it symbolize the love of God? Or does it symbolize the wrath of God? Does is symbolize human suffering? Or does it symbolize the influence of the church? If there are no literal statement to give information as to what the cross symbolizes, these questions are unanswerable.

Let a person say that the cross symbolizes the love of God. However, if all language or religious language is symbolical, the statement that the cross symbolizes the love of God is itself a symbol. A symbol of what? When this last question is answered, we shall find that this answer is again a symbol. Then another symbol is needed, and another. And the whole process will be meaningless...

...In order to have meaning, an analogy, a metaphor, or a symbol must be supported by some literal truth. If Samson was as strong as an ox, then an ox must literally be strong. If Christ is the lion of the tribe of Judah, then something must be literally true about lions and about Christ also. No matter with what literary embellishment the comparison be made, there must be a strictly true statement that has given rise to it. And a theory that says all language is symbolic is a theory that cannot be taken as literally true. Its own statements are metaphorical and meaningless...

...The possibility of rational communication between God and man is easily explained on theistic presuppositions. If God created man in his own rational image and endowed him with the power of speech, then a purpose of language--in fact, the chief purpose of language--would naturally be the revelation of truth to man and the prayers of man to God...language was devised by God; that is, God created man rational for the purpose of theological expression...

...If reason, that is, logic, which makes speech possible is a God-given faculty, it must be adequate to its divinely appointed task. And its task is the reception of divinely revealed information and that systematization of the propositions of dogmatic theology.

To sum up: Language is capable of conveying literal truths because the laws of logic are necessary. There is no substitute for them. Philosophers who deny them reduce their own denials to nonsense syllables...

(God's Hammer: The Bible and Its Critics, 82-85)

Dr. Clark is right. If language is nothing more than an approximation of truth, then that claim is also an approximation. If language can only produce metaphors, then that too is a metaphor. The only logical outcome when pushed to extreme is theological skepticism--knowing God in any way is impossible. I presented this criticism to exist. He responded by redefining approximation and metaphor, while defending against the charge of skepticism. My objections to his response are as follows: (1) When he says that "human language is metaphorical", that proposition does not operate as metaphor. In fact, It seems to communicate his point quite directly. (2) He defines approximation as a "shadow of what could be, of that which we have scarcely brushed with our epistemological abilities before it explodes our capacities for comprehending. It is a deliberately self-deconstructing utilization of language." I would offer that definition as more than self-deconstructing, but as self-defeating. If an approximation is a mere shadow of what could be, then the term approximation is a misnomer and skepticism is the only logical outflow.

If I assumed his premises of language, I honestly would not be able to say that the knowledge of God is possible, and it would be inconsistent for me to accuse anyone of idolatry. The sin of idolatry is the worship of a false image or concept of God, and if the human mind in incapable of expressing the transcendental truths of God thereby producing a measure by which I can judge idolatry, then how am I supposed to know what idolatry is? Better yet, why even praise God? If my words cannot express divine truth, then I can seemingly speak only in blasphemies.

Exist~Dissolve takes the "Human Language" theory even further than those whom Dr. Clark is rebutting. Exist says that if propositional language can capture and define God, then it is consubstantial with God. This is not a presupposition with which I can agree. Human language cannot "define" God in the sense of limiting God and his actions, but it does not follow that language cannot express aspects of God's personality and attributes. When John tells us, "God is love," I see a direct explanation of God's character. It is even in propositional form. Several times in the correspondence, exist~dissolve describes God as infinite and transcendent, which is also a proposed truth claim expressing attributes of God. If exist is correct in his theory of language, he could not even say that God is infinite and transcendent and expect that to mean anything at all to me. I agree with exist when he says that human thought and expression cannot capture the fullness of God, but it does not follow that human language cannot convey truth about God. Is not the claim, "God is love" truthful? If I were to say that my wife is smart, I may not have defined who she is entirely, but I did convey a truth about her.

One last point on the capacities for human language; Gordon H. Clark also made a great point when he said the theories of language are useless in isolation, but need to be a part of a larger philosophical system. A theory of language should determine the origin, nature, and purpose of language and should be rooted in the presuppositions of the system at large. Exists theory is ultimately derived from philosophy system with naturalistic, evolutionary premises. However, this question must be asked. What does it mean to be created in the image of God? Exist has stated that volition is one aspect. Are not also the human capacities for thought, communication, reason, and language part of that image? Exist seems to think that we define God's image by "infinitized" human attributes, but, in fact, it is the other way around. We define the human attributes in limited forms of the divine attributes, and we do not share all of them with the divine. When we describe God, it does not follow that we are limiting God's existence within human language. I am not confining my wife's existence to my words by describing her as tall or beautiful.

Concerning Revelation -- Exist~dissolve seems to misunderstand the Reformed position on authority and revelation when we say, "The Bible is full revelation of God." We do not mean full in the sense of all that God is, we mean full in the sense of all that God has given us. The source of Scripture is God, and I would say God is capable of expressing aspects of himself to us in words. There are aspects of God's purpose and will that are not revealed to us in Scripture, for example, "no one knows the day or hour," says Christ concerning his return, hence, that has not been revealed to us. In the Reformed tradition, the baseline presupposition is this: all that God intends for us to know of Him has been revealed in the Bible.

"Christ is the only self-revelation of God." The question must be asked, how is Jesus the self-revelation? How does the revealing take place? It is implied through some of exist's correspondence that it is by "a bloody cross." Why is a bloody cross significant? How does self-revelation take place? Let me give an illustration stolen from Dr. Clark: If I were to sit in a room with another person, how does a relationship form? He may do nice things for me, but if he does not express himself verbally, I cannot get a glimpse into his higher thoughts, his desires, his likes, his dislikes, his passions, his dreams, his hope, or his opinions. In order for me to better know him relationally, he must voluntarily self-disclose information. If we sat in a room and looked at each other, I cannot say that I've made acquaintance with him.

With Christ, I come to know him personally and relationally through the words he has spoken and the words that I speak. I pray to him using words, and I learn of Him by his words. It is not merely Christ's actions that reveal God's nature, but also the teaching of his words. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass." (Matt 24:35)

Moreover, in the context of the Reformed premise of the "verbal plenary" inspiration of the Bible, the Bible itself is God's self-revelation--for it is God's Spirit who, through the human author, inspired each word stroked by his pen. Thus, ultimately we have God's words that reveal what He intends for us to know of his nature and purposes. Christians are not convinced of the Inspiration of Scripture by reason, they are convinced by a faith given to them of God--and that faith is the basis of all our belief. Since we have what we hold to be a God-given faith--a faith trusting that the ultimate source of the words of Scripture is the Holy Spirit, who is God-very-God--the Bible is the "self-revelation" of God and it is intrinsically authoritative due to the Source. We do not hold that level of authority to creeds and councils, although we may agree with some of the councils' conclusions--and, in fact, are indebted to them for their wisdom.

Divergence from Biblical Authors -- Exist also does not follow the lead of Christ and the apostles. Even if we take Exist's presuppositions concerning biblical inspiration and authority, or even if the Bible is merely historically accurate, we have an idea of what Jesus taught concerning the written words of God. He quotes Deuteronomy in Matthew 4, "Is is written, 'man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.'" How many times does Jesus say, "it is written" or "it is [not] written?" Why rebut the Pharisees with Old Testament Scripture if exist~dissolve's understanding on authority were true? Why were the authors of the New Testament so concerned with Christ "fulfilling the Scriptures"? (Mark 12:10, 15:28; John 7:42, 13:18, 17:12, 19:24, 19:28; Acts 1:16, among others.) Why does Paul consult Old Testament so very often in his writings? Why use the word theopneustos (All Scripture is God breathed) in 2 Timothy 3:16? Why does Jesus say "The Scripture cannot be broken" in John 10:35? It seems to me that Jesus thought that the Old Testament conveyed literal truth. Why is Peter concerned with people "twisting" Paul's letters (2 Peter 3:16) "as they do also the rest of the Scriptures" if there is not a knowable, literal truth communicated in Paul's letters and the Old Testament? In all honesty, how can Peter accuse them of "twisting" if there were not literal truth being communicated?

It seems that exist and deviant monk depart from New Testament's expressed high (as in absolute) view of Scriptural authority and inerrancy. If the words of the Scripture are "God breathed," why couldn't they communicate divine truth?

Conclusion on Epistemology

Ultimately, exist~dissolve and deviant monk have an outright unquestioned authority. I am not sure what it is. What I can tell you is this: the logical, reasoned outflow of their epistemology can only be skepticism. I am not accusing them of being skeptics. If your read their blogs, you will see that they believe in God and in Christ as the eternal logos of God. They are certain that particular forms of Christianity are idolatrous. What I am saying is that it is inconsistent for them to assert as they do about the incapability of human thought and language to express divine truth and then to claim a genuine, relational knowledge of God.

In the Reformed perspective, we take the Bible as Inspired on faith, and derive the rest from the claims of Scripture, albeit we do make mistakes. However, a misinterpretation of Scripture only brings discredit to the interpreter, not the source. We do have unquestioned, unreasoned presupposition (sola Scriptura), but the presuppositions do not collapse under their own weight. One may disagree with the premise, but it is not a matter of logical fallacy as it is a matter of distaste.

Next, a response to the charge of a "materialist conception of God."